Yeah, I don't see the problem with Abram's response. Pretty fantastic if you ask me. She doesn't have to curse Trump out to still emphatically reject his method of politics and leadership, which she did. In every interview I've seen her in, she has always come across as more soft-spoken with real empathy for everyone. It's simply not her style to be expecting some kind of fiery, drop-the-mic kind of response from her.

Absolutely jaw-droppingly embarrassing behavior from some Dems for those standing ovations. Initially shocked, but upon further reflection I have to admit I don't know how I could have been. Their gut-wrenching posturing will never not be a slap in the face, no matter how much one gets used to it.

The Republican party is beyond embarrassing. I would use the word "filthy," or perhaps "reprehensible."

More than a handful of Dems were acting in a pretty thoroughly embarrassing manner. Some of them seemed to be able to conduct themselves, properly however. The party has some sorting out to do. I have no doubt it will do so sooner rather than later.

She's not currently running a campaign in Georgia. Her response does not need to take that into consideration. She doesn't hold any current government office. She's making a response, speaking for Democrats across the country, not just her former constituency in Georgia. It's asinine to pretend like she needed to be protective of how she spoke here as if she was running an important reelection campaign today, though as I said it almost seemed like she was going to announce something for the first two and a half minutes of her response.

She may like to run again there, some day. Unlike you think she's retiring from running for office altogether, which I doubt as this is a major sign she still wants to be in that field. Being a black woman will affect her political ambitious outside the South, as well. AOC's not simply running in a safe blue seat, she's in a tiny fraction of New York who are ok electing dude's like Andrew Cuomo governor. She remains untested in seats like that, which is why she's getting away with more.

It's also clear she didn't lose the election in Georgia because of the perceptions of her as a black woman, but very likely was due to voter suppression, an issue I applaud her bringing back up, despite the appearance it would clearly give that she's salty about the outcome. That's why, to me, it's frustrating she chooses to bring that up in her response but for everything else tows the safe Dem line of talking points here in response to Trump in the safest, vanilla way possible.

It can be both. America's racism and sexism don't end for black women, regardless of where they are. Particularly in a state like Georgia. Being safe = political career keeps going, not being safe = goodbye holding political office. I can understand why she went with that approach.

She behaved during her campaign exactly as she did tonight, so using the fact that she was so popular as an example for why she could act like the imaginary person some of you wish she was doesn't make any sense. Stacey Abrams was asked to speak tonight and this is who she is. The fact that she does not currently hold an office makes her position even more precarious, I would think. Her only influence comes from how she is perceived on this most public stage.

I don't at all think it's asinine to acknowledge that black women have to be careful of their behavior at all times, especially black women seeking positions of power and authority in Georgia. I can't believe you'd actually suggest that potentially bombing tonight isn't a risk for someone still up and coming.

She hasn’t hinted that she’s still seeking office in the imminent future. If she’s going to try running for governor again that wouldn’t be for the next four years. The fact that she instead decided to take time out to plug her non-profit tells me that seeking office isn’t her top priority within the next two years.

And frankly everyone has to be ultra sensitive towards their image when seeking public office. That happens with everyone, specifically because people don’t tend to focus solely on the content of one’s message. Look last year at Joe Kennedy’s response to Trump. Of course his issues had more to do with his physical appearance as people couldn’t stop talking about how wet his mouth looked.

And frankly I don't even know what you people are talking about when you say she was vanilla. She went in on the shutdown at length. She said Trump was responsible, called his behavior un-American, said it was disgraceful, talked about how it exploited working class people. When talking about the topic of the shutdown she explicitly said the words "cannot be negotiable," though she framed it in a very specific and positive context that keeps away from the "negative Democrats won't come to the table" spin people would look for.

At length is a bit of a stretch considering her time spent on the shutdown was about half as long as her telling her personal family story at the beginning of the speech. Calling out the GOP for the shutdown itself isn’t new and has been said in much more I feel effective and passionate way which again didn’t make it about her and her time working with Republicans at the state level. Every “reach across the isle” Dem has that story in their back pocket.

She brought up school shootings and blamed the White House explicitly for a lack of response. She said "family's hopes are being crushed by Republican leadership that ignores real life or just doesn't understand it" and brought up the importance of unions and directly blamed the Republican tax break and the trade wars for economic issues. That's just in the first half.

Again none of this is really new, nor was it presented I think in a way that really connected with anyone that these are urgent issues that we’re facing. Which I thing is my biggest issue here. Her big sister call to action was to check out her non-profit.

Did you guys actually listen to what she said or were you so turned off by her tone of voice not matching your own anger that you couldn't process it? Because if that's vanilla, I'm not sure what political discourse is expected to be anymore.

Look Abrams is a great orator. I’m not going to try and take that away from her. On the same token I do feel that she could have easily been replaced by a Harris or another Dem currently holding it seeing as her last few minutes was the greatest hits material delivered in what felt like a very manufactured optimism. Someone they’d be looking to prop up in the immediate future. Not someone who is unsure as to what their political future holds with a big ol’ shrug emoji. I feel like there was more to give there. To really speak towards people who see this going down and are on the verge of giving up, or accepting how things are. Feel free to disagree but I feel I’ve seen Abrams break down injustices with much more oomph than what we saw tonight. Which as I mentioned earlier I’m willing to admit perhaps it’s becauss this was all a prepared speech being read from a TelePrompTer.

Some of the responses to Abrams' address... come on. I honestly can't think of a better SOTU response, either Democratic or Republican. She delivered a great message with a great voice, but it seems some have become tone deaf to political rhetoric that lies outside the Twitter clapback range.

As far as SOTU responses go, almost all of the memorable ones are memorable for the wrong reasons. I'll remember this one for the stark contrast it provided, for its comforting combination of seriousness of policy and compassion, and for the impeccable way it was delivered.

She hasn’t hinted that she’s still seeking office in the imminent future. If she’s going to try running for governor again that wouldn’t be for the next four years. The fact that she instead decided to take time out to plug her non-profit tells me that seeking office isn’t her top priority within the next two years.

I guess no more Infrastucture Weeks? Buffoon got his tax cut to enrich himself and that's all he cared about.

Last years SotU, very specific:

I am asking both parties to come together to give us the safe, fast, reliable, and modern infrastructure our economy needs and our people deserve.

Tonight, I am calling on the Congress to produce a bill that generates at least $1.5 trillion for the new infrastructure investment we need.

Every Federal dollar should be leveraged by partnering with State and local governments and, where appropriate, tapping into private sector investment — to permanently fix the infrastructure deficit.

Any bill must also streamline the permitting and approval process — getting it down to no more than two years, and perhaps even one.

This years SotU, less specific comments, more vague:

Both parties should be able to unite for a great rebuilding of America’s crumbling infrastructure. I know that the Congress is eager to pass an infrastructure bill — and I am eager to work with you on legislation to deliver new and important infrastructure investment, including investments in the cutting edge industries of the future. This is not an option. This is a necessity.

I'm interested what Pelosi was saying when Trump was talking about unemployment being low. Are these the results of Obama policies? Is that why she didn't clap when he talked about the lowest level of unemployment ever for minorities?

Absolutely jaw-droppingly embarrassing behavior from some Dems for those standing ovations. Initially shocked, but upon further reflection I have to admit I don't know how I could have been. Their gut-wrenching posturing will never not be a slap in the face, no matter how much one gets used to it.

What do you want me to back up? That she's not doing it sarcastically? I think that the idea that she was acting as an insincere clown performing for an audience (perfectly in line with your stated political philosophies) is something that neither of us can contest, since you're asking for evidence of the presence or absence of sarcasm.

Watched this last night as I cooked, and I know it's old hat to comment on, but how is every American not mortified at some of your politicians doing a "USA!USA!" chant on multiple occasions during this?

There was a lot of moments during this that I drowned in second hand embarrassment.

“It wasn’t sarcastic,” Speaker Pelosi told reporters Wednesday, pointing to the language that brought her to her feet — and Trump’s own history of inflammatory rhetoric and personal attacks on his opponents.

“Look at what I was applauding,” Pelosi said. “I wanted him to know that it was very welcomed.”

To explain why that is the only method to show disapproval, on a website who routinely make sarcastic jabs at white supremacists. This isn't about not clapping being an option, it's the only option from Nancy you take value in. Which is odd, to say the least. Humor and sarcasm are traditions at taking the wind out of politicians like Trump, Hollywood's been doing that to him for decades before he got into politics. Do you think they were all supporting him, as well?

Of course what's missing is why would you assume she's that terrible a person to begin with? You think Nancy's down with white supremacy?

What could Trump do? Remove her from office? Execute her? Is she worried about the right attacking her? As if they don't do that already on an hourly basis. It's not like Pelosi doesn't criticize Trump all the fucking time. Oh but now she has to lie about sarcastic clapping because…? This isn't Pelosi playing 4D chess while trying to become the petty queen of social media. It's someone fucking clapping while a bunch of people get really delusional about it.

Are you capable of containing multiple thoughts in your head at once? You can criticize someone for doing something shitty without thinking they're a terrible person. Or are you just this immune to criticism of your favorite politicians?